What do Monsanto and Egypt’s new President Morsi have in common? Both are trying to execute big, sweeping power grabs. In Monsanto’s case, it is happening during the holiday lame duck session of congress. Very stealthfully Monsanto got their proposed law attached as a rider to the original House 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill.

If passed, this law would allow new genetically engineered crops to be planted even whencourts rule that the US Department of Agriculture has approved them illegally. Read about the bill.

In other words, good-bye farmer’s choice to plant non-GMO crops and hello full immunity from federal law for Monsanto.

Like this:

After discovering this morning that I had a bag of dried black beans in my pantry I had the ambitious idea to make a pot of non-GMO chile. Of course the first thing I had to do was check to see if I had everything I needed at home. It’s always a plus if I don’t have to go shopping!

Uh-oh… tomato paste? Do I have it? Ah, here is a can. Hy-top brand, the store brand from Winco Foods. It is definitely not organic but does it come from GM tomatoes? Nothing I can read on the can will tell me. I decided to google “tomato paste + non-GMO”. What came up was a little blurb from a website in the UK.

Tomato paste can also be made from 6 or 7 varieties of tomato, so the only way to tell if your paste is completely GM-free is to go back to the source of the tomatoes and find out which types were planted in the first place.

Alternatively, you could just look at the packet – UK law says that all GM foods must be clearly labelled!

Guess what folks? Here in the US we don’t have the option to just “look at the packet” because our genetically modified foods don’t require a label. At this point, if I really want to be a purist, I have to get in the car and drive to a store where I know I can get organic tomato paste, thereby using gas and other valuable resources.

I know I know – almost every word I post on this blog is biased against GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Ok, so, I’m going to back off for just a bit and play nice. I understand that my personal bias can be an instant turn-off to someone who might otherwise be curious about this topic but doesn’t react well when, upon first sight of my home/archives page, gets an earful from me about boycotting products or how evil Monsanto is.

So just this evening I started perusing the internet for articles that contain balanced and objective information about the subject of this blog.

I did find what I believe is a very balanced and informative page at http://genomics.energy.gov, parent site for the Human Genome Project – the effort coordinated by the US Department of Energy, the National Institute of Health and a host of others – to identify all genes in human DNA.

I’d first like to list all the terms that are used quite interchangeably when it comes to the topic of GMOs, be they used correctly or not: genetic modification (GM), biotechnology, genetic engineering (GE), recombinant DNA technology, transgenic, transgenic organism, transgene, transgenesis.

I’m sure there are more but it’s a start. Please read on:

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS AND ORGANISMS

What are Genetically Modified (GM) Foods?

Although “biotechnology” and “genetic modification” commonly are used interchangeably, GM is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt.

Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be “genetically modified,” “genetically engineered,” or “transgenic.” GM products (current or those in development) include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers.

Locating genes for important traits—such as those conferring insect resistance or desired nutrients—is one of the most limiting steps in the process. However, genome sequencing and discovery programs for hundreds of organisms are generating detailed maps along with data-analyzing technologies to understand and use them.

In 2006, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes.

On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.

In 2006, countries that grew 97% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (53%), Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized nations, it is increasing in developing countries. The next decade will see exponential progress in GM product development as researchers gain increasing and unprecedented access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

Technologies for genetically modifying foods offer dramatic promise for meeting some of the 21st Century’s greatest challenges. Like all new technologies, they also pose some risks, both known and unknown. Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation (see GM Products: Benefits and Controversies, below).

Source: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml
A few personal comments: I do have an issue with the terms “friendly” bioherbicides and bioinsecticides. To my knowledge, there is nothing “friendly” about Roundup nor Bt, the GM toxin that kills bugs when they bite into corn. Next, weeds are becoming more resistant to the Roundup sprayed in and around the crops. A new “superweed” is developing. This is causing the need for more and more spraying to be done. It has also been evident in my research that animals are less healthy when eating GM feed, not more so. There have been documented cases of sterility in livestock after being given a genetically modified diet.

Of course, I am biased and have freely admitted that. I do believe that the above article has succeeded in presenting a balanced view of GMOs.

I have already started my own personal list of products I am boycotting because they came out strongly against labeling of GMOs (in other words, they gave cash, BIG cash to defeat California Prop 37, the Just Label It ballot initiative). I keep finding more complete and detailed lists and let me tell ya, it is surprising. Some brands are so clever with packaging and product image that you just assume they couldn’t be an off-shoot of of a mega-conglomerate but come to find out, that’s precisely what they are. Case in point: look at the photo below of this Dagoba brand organic baker’s chocolate. Though it originally was an organic product with integrity, and is still made in a small factory in Ashland, Oregon, it was bought by Hershey in 2006. Wolf in sheep’s clothing!

I live in the Portland metro area which shares the banks of the mighty Columbia river with Washington state, the newest state to get on board the Label GMOs (Label It Washinton, Yes on I-522) train. I couldn’t be more thrilled that the push to get genetically modified foods labeled has taken firm roots in Oregon’s neighbor to the north! All the momentum gained during the Prop 37 battle in California is fueling this newest endeavor. And in Washington, it’s not just consumers who want labeling, but organic and even some conventional farmers, ranchers and dairies. Both Oregon and Washington are a haven for farmer’s markets, co-ops, organic produce clubs and the like, so it is no surprise that support is in plentiful supply.

I recently posted that all the attention given to the GMO issue because of Prop 37 in California, both good and bad, was a good thing. Even the barrage of TV ads against labeling paid for by the biotech and food industries generated the kind of publicity that makes the average consumer take notice. So many more people are now becoming aware that they’ve been eating GMO food since 1994!

In addition to that, Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest managed health care organization, has published a recent article in their Northwest regional Partners In Health newsletter (originally reported here by WillametteLive.com, a local news organization) with a clear warning to avoid GMOs as much as possible. Kaiser is my hero for speaking up about this issue. It’s high time a big organization took sides and spoke out!

Here is recent news from The Organic Consumer’s Association, one of the spearheads of the labeling movement. The association moves their focus from California to Washington! Oregon has an initiative started as well, but it is not as far along as Washington’s is.